"Starting Monday at 5:01 pm, several California counties began issuing same-sex “marriage” certificates. This follows the order of the four Supreme Court judges striking down Proposition 22, which the voters overwhelming approved just a few years ago to reaffirm marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Yet, this debate is not over. Thankfully, the Protection of Marriage Amendment will appear on this November’s ballot. The campaign of the next few months will be our opportunity to remind Californians why the unique role of traditional marriage in society is worth protecting.

The major media would love to see us engage in fierce protests and hostile demonstrations of outrage against the licensing of same-sex “marriages”. Of course they will take any opportunity they can find to portray us as unreasonable. We must not fall into this trap.

So let us keep in mind: Our battle is not against the same-sex couples who are pursuing the opportunity to “marry” granted them by the activist judges on the California Supreme Court. Our battle is against the flawed reasoning of the court’s decision; our purpose is to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage. Marriage is at the core of family security and is an essential element in our society. The Supreme Court has effectively rendered marriage meaningless at a time when we should be taking steps to strengthen families.

Fortunately, the Protection of Marriage Amendment will give voters the final say in this debate. We are confident that voters will reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage, just as they overwhelmingly did in 2000, and overturn the court’s flawed decision.

To succeed, however, we must raise the funds needed to launch an organized grassroots campaign and purchase statewide TV and radio advertisements urging a “yes” vote on the Marriage Amendment. Please mail a check or donate online today to support our campaign for marriage.

Thank you,

Ron Prentice, Chairman"

We have a strong possibility to put an end to gay marriage and judicial tyranny. But we need your support! Our campaign can take out-of-state donations. This is important because the California State Supreme Court decision is currently recognizing same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples. Please visit this website to see how you can make a difference and pass the word:

In the post-9/11 Republican Party, there is one line that us conservatives don't cross. We do not critique Bush's handling of foreign policy and national security issues from a leftist perspective. Those who do, like Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel, and Walter Jones, get "primaried".

After improvements in Iraq finally begin to take place and victory appears to be attainable, Mike Huckabee, in his latest Foreign Affairs piece, attacked President Bush's handling of the War on Terror from the left.

Even Ron Paul has not crossed that line.

At least when Ron Paul says everything about blowback, and leaving Iraq, it is a far-right wing critique based upon the principles of nonintervention and that America should not be spending money abroad.

The following statements of Hucakebee are all attacks on President Bush from a left-wing perspective:

1. President Bush has an arrogant foreign policy.

2. President Bush has a "bunker mentality".

3. Guantanamo Bay needs to be closed because other people don't like it.

4. Bush is on a path "to war with Iran".

5. We need to negotiate with Iran.

6. Our relationship with Iran is strained, much like "friends who don't talk for some time".

7. A lack of opportunity is the root cause of terrorism.

8. "Much like a top high school student, if it [the US] is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved.”

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: something desperately in need of revamping or outright scrapping. Whine and cry all you want, but when you're the one being held by islamofascists (i.e.: "freedom fighters", "patriots" and "minute men", to you liberals out there), I'll bet you'll want the laws the change, and change quick. However, I do realize there is a stupid core of you, out there on the far left, that would gladly let al-Qaeda terrorists saw your head off on an Internet-available snuff-flick, rather than see Republicans get something they want (because, after all, only the mean ol' Republicans support eavesdropping, right?).

Excerpt: His late start carries some problems but also "certain advantages," he says. "Nobody has maxed out to me" in contributions, he notes, and using the Internet already "has allowed me to be in the hunt, so to speak, without spending a dime."

Thompson could reshape a GOP contest in which each of the three leaders has significant vulnerabilities and none of the seven second-tier contenders has broken through. Without formally joining the race — he's preparing to do that as early as the first week of July — Thompson already is placing third and better among Republican candidates in some national polls.

Dissatisfaction among one-third of Republicans with the 2008 field has opened the door for the candidate whose folksy tone, actor's ease before an audience and conservative credentials drew comparisons to Ronald Reagan at the annual Connecticut GOP dinner here. Thompson addressed the dinner last week to a sold-out audience.

Many conservatives are fired up over him and considering the flaws of our current pool of candidates, Freddie may have a big advantage!

In the spirit of tonight's Republican debate, I have posted this poll, which should bring some interesting results. Feel free to take it, I will post an analysis once I have enough answers. It is only 2 questions and very simple. Pass it along to your GOP buddies as well.

A woman who had traveled from New York asked Sen. Clinton if she had read the report given to her in 2002 on intelligence and the Iraq war.

Clinton said she had been briefed on the report, and the woman screamed back, "Did you read it?!" Notably uncomfortable, the Senator repeated that she had been briefed. This exchange went back and forth about three times.

The woman sat down and Clinton explained, "If I had known then what I know now, I never would have voted to give this President the authority."

The above passage shows how pathetic Clintonian Democratic politics really is. Hillary Clinton's cop-out for voting for use of force against Iraq in 2002 was that she was "briefed" on the intelligence report. One would think that a politician who truly cared about the significance of their vote - especially on a issue of war and peace - would have actually READ the intelligence report that was given to her. Instead, Hillary Clinton's excuse is that she was "briefed" on it. At best, Hillary Clinton is admitting that she was an incompetent legislature, one whose gross negligence directly contributed to the war in Iraq.

Her second cop-out, that "had she known then what she knows now", is a bunch of horsecrap as well. Had Hillary Clinton actually read the intelligence report that was given to her, she very well would have had the opportunity to "know what she knows now." At the very least, if she was the prophetic genius that she thinks she is, she would have been able to use her glorious Senatorial powers to demand more intelligence where she thought it was lacking. Instead, she was "briefed" on the intelligence report, and then went ahead and recklessly voted for a war she turned around and later opposed.

Hillary Clinton is a political hack, and the above passage proves it. Political hacks like her prefer to be "briefed" on things instead of actually reading them, because it gives them political cover. This is what these clowns do time and time again whenever they get questioned for passing a stupid piece of legislation, or for voting for something that later proved to be a bad choice. If they actually READ the things they were voting for, or actually READ the background to the things they were voting for, they would no longer have the typical politician's excuse of "oh, well I was briefed on it, so it must be my aide's fault."

But that's not it; things get even worse. Being the political hack that she is, Hillary Clinton went on to make another ridiculous comment at today's gathering, once again in response to the question about her 2002 use of force against Iraq resolution vote:

Clinton also said she believed she was giving the President the authority to send U.N. inspectors to Iraq.

Interesting, that, given what Hillary Clinton had to say back in October 2002 on the Senate floor about that very resolution:

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

UN inspectors indeed, you Clintonian hack! This woman makes John Kerry sound consistent and honest. In any case, this just furthers my point that Hillary Clinton defines everything that is wrong with American politics today.

To the Democratic primary voters out there, for the love of God, save this country a lot of misery and vote for Barack Obama. And to the Republicans and Independents out there, you are this country's last hope if this witch makes it past the Democratic primary. Pick a good candidate in your primaries, Republicans, because it may be the only thing that will save this country from what could be 28 straight years of Bushes and Clintons.

The one trend that is most noticeable among the policy that so-called "progressives" espouse is that they constantly attack the symptom and not the disease; they never attack the root core of the evil, but rather focus on a few select results of that evil that will serve to gain them the most political points. Usually, these political points are gained by riling up a select demographic group, so that Democrats can win that bloc in the next election.

Look no further than the Don Imus fiasco and the outpouring of racial demagoguery that "progressives" like Al Sharpton and his ilk dumped upon the country. Not a single one of these "progressives" even thought to attack the root core of the problem - that black rap culture has, for far too long, promoted language that is demeaning to both blacks as a whole and women. Instead, these "progessives" focused on attacking a white man - Imus - for making the comment, demanding over and over again that he apologize, and subsequently demanding his firing. They constantly whined about what a racist comment it was and how it hurt people's "feelings." Don Imus was a symptom of the disease that black rap culture has afflicted America with. Don Imus got fired, and all of the "progressives" that verbally lynched him got all of their demands. What was the result? The elimination of a symptom - Don Imus's stupid comments - but the perpetuation of the disease - rap culture continuing to demean blacks and women. Another result, of course, is that "progressives" managed to once again rile up the black community, hoping that they will keep that monolith as a blind voting bloc for themselves.

But it goes beyond this too. As is quite obvious, "progressives" love to play the class card. How many times did we see the Democrats banter on and on about Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" in 2004? How many times do we see John Edwards, the biggest demagogue in the 2008 primary race, whine about how the rich are getting richer? "Progressives" rarely speak about the increasing financial burden being placed on the middle class; instead, when they refer to the middle class, they frame it as "the rich are getting richer, and you guys are not." Once again, they attack the symptom - rich people having a lot of money - without addressing the disease - the overwhelming financial burden the middle class has to put up with, partially due to "progressive" policy that has, over the course of the past few decades, placed huge tax, education, and other expenses upon the middle class for the sake of the "poor." What is the result? "Progressive" policy continues to hammer the middle class, and maybe the rich get taxed a little more; but that doesn't help the middle class, now does it? It does, however, help "progressives", because, much as in the Imus fiasco, they manage to rile up an entire group - here it is the middle class. The difference is that the middle class is not a monolith, and many of them are free enough thinkers to notice that in more "progressive" states, the middle class faces an even bigger burden. But this won't stop "progressives" from trying to gain another monolith by attacking a symptom instead of a disease.

A third example is the education system. "Progressives" constantly attack the symptom - the subpar status of our public schools and student performance - but never attack the disease - the structure of the public school system itself. They'll banter on and on about our failed schools while proposing the same old policies that haven't worked (like more funding). They particularly tend to do this with regard to inner-city schools, where "progressives" can get a 2-for-1: they can gain the black monolith vote and also the urban parent vote by attacking the symptom that is the failed status of such schools. In any case, these "progressives" never attack the root problem, which is the public schools themselves.

The fact is that "progressives" don't want to cure the diseases whose symptoms they attack. Much like how Al Sharpton cannot remain the "head" of the black community if the black community gains in status, "progressives" cannot win votes if they work to solve the problems of blacks and the middle class, or any other group that would benefit from disease-curing. "Progressive" policy is a sham, no matter which side of the aisle it is on; for instance, neo-conservatism is quite "progressive" in that it, too, attacks a symptom instead of a disease - it tries to spread "democracy" around the world militarily to attack a symptom (corrupt countries) instead of fighting off the disease (Islamic terrorism). The bottom line is that "progressivism" is all about creating divides and selectively attacking branches of evil instead of the root of the evil; branches of evil that serve to gain "progressives" the most votes and political support.

By the way, the word "progressive" has "quotes" around it in the above passage because I think the entire word "progressive" is a sham in itself. "Progressive" is merely a euphemism for "left-liberalism," which said "progressives" do not want to admit they are. The word is a sham because the very word "progressive" implies "progress," which is something that cannot be said of a group of people who openly advocate policies that attack symptoms, in a pathetic effort to get political support, instead of attacking the root cause of the problem. PROGRESS is made when you solve the problem - not when you bitch on and on about damage caused by the problem. "Progressive" my ass.

This is one of the worst things I have heard, this entire year. I haven't heard legislation this bad, since I found out about the existence of SAN FRANSICKO. This is the price Michigan men will pay for voting in a stupid Canadian that's a socialist liberal democrat on top of everything else. The hatred and anger within me have reached critical mass, and if I were even to come within 10 miles of the Fermi 2 reactor in Monroe County, hundreds of thousands of people would die from the resulting chain reaction.

I try not to bring personal emotion into arguments; that's for liberals, and that's why the majority of them are losers who deserve every misfortune they legislate against themselves with their stupid laws. However I can't hold it back, this time. I HATE those responsible for this: Republican and dumbasscrat, alike. I would like to have them abducted, beaten and paradropped into Tehran to face life imprisonment or death. This is an unconscionable infringement and absolute REVOCATION of the rights of men throughout the state, and it was never even made public, which is another thing that riles me. Had this gone to vote along with other issues like "affirmative" action and absolutely STUPID issues like dove hunting, it's instant death would've been EPIC, and probably cost careers.

I am so mad, right now, I can barely spell my own name.

They passed this shit under the radar, and they should be made to pay for it, dearly. I WILL find out who voted for this, and I will make their names public. I wouldn't vote any of those assholes to be town DOG CATCHER.